Chapter 11 Exercises: Political Philosophy

Comprehension Exercises

Exercise 11.1 — The Three Social Contracts

Complete this comparison table without looking at your notes:

Then return to the chapter and correct or fill in what you missed. Where did you have the clearest understanding? Where were you fuzzy?

Exercise 11.2 — The State of Nature Thought Experiment

Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all used the state of nature thought experiment — imagining pre-political human life — as a foundation for political philosophy.

(a) Why is this thought experiment useful, even if no such historical state ever existed? (b) Each philosopher describes a different state of nature. What does this tell us about the relationship between starting assumptions and political conclusions? (c) Contemporary philosophers have raised concerns about this kind of thought experiment. Can you identify at least one way in which imagining individuals outside of all political and social relationships might distort the conclusions you reach?

Exercise 11.3 — Rawls and Public Reason

(a) Explain the "fact of reasonable pluralism" in your own words. Why does Rawls think it is a feature of free societies? (b) Give an example of a political argument that uses public reason, and one that does not. (Invent your own examples; don't use abortion — find a different contested political question.) (c) Is Rawls's requirement of public reason itself neutral — or does it implicitly favor certain kinds of people, reasoning styles, or traditions over others? This is a genuine criticism; try to give it its due.

Exercise 11.4 — Political Obligation Theories

Evaluate each of the following theories of political obligation by identifying its main strength and its main weakness:

(a) Consent theory (tacit consent version) (b) Fair play theory (c) Natural duty theory

Then: if none of these theories is fully satisfying, does that mean there is no obligation to obey the law? What follows from the philosophical puzzle about political obligation?

Application Exercises

Exercise 11.5 — Applying the Three Traditions

A government passes a law requiring all citizens to carry identification at all times, allowing police to demand ID without suspicion of a crime. Failure to produce ID is a misdemeanor.

Apply each of the three social contract theories to evaluate this law's legitimacy:

(a) What would Hobbes say? (Does this law serve the purpose of the contract?) (b) What would Locke say? (Does this law respect natural rights? Does it require legitimate consent?) (c) What would Rousseau say? (Does this law reflect the general will?)

Then: what does your own analysis conclude? Do you think there is a correct answer here, or do the three theories reveal genuinely different values that can't be reconciled?

Exercise 11.6 — The Democratic Legitimacy Question

Three scenarios. For each, evaluate whether the outcome is democratically legitimate, drawing on at least two frameworks from the chapter (equal standing, deliberative democracy, Rawlsian justice, etc.):

(a) A constitutional referendum passes by a 51-49 majority, after a campaign in which the winning side spent ten times as much on advertising as the losing side.

(b) A diverse city council, after extensive public hearings lasting six months, votes 7-2 to approve a major policy change that a survey shows 60% of residents opposed before the hearings but 55% now support.

(c) An elected government passes a law that restricts voting access in ways that disproportionately affect poor and minority voters, citing fraud prevention, though documented fraud is essentially nonexistent.

Exercise 11.7 — Communitarian Critique

Michael Sandel argues that liberal democracy's emphasis on procedural neutrality leaves citizens without the shared sense of common purpose that democratic life requires.

(a) Describe a specific example from contemporary political life that Sandel's critique might help explain. (b) What would Rawls or a Rawlsian say in response to Sandel's critique? (c) Who do you find more persuasive on this point, and why?

Exercise 11.8 — Progressive Project Component

For your Ethics section: write 300–400 words on the following questions.

1. What do you believe makes a government legitimate? Drawing on the theories from this chapter, identify which elements you find most compelling and why.

2. Under what circumstances — if any — do you think citizens have the right or even the obligation to disobey laws they believe are unjust? How does your answer connect to the theories of political obligation in this chapter?

3. What would you owe a government that systematically violated the principles you identified in (1)? Continued compliance? Active resistance? Something in between?

There is no correct answer, but there are more and less philosophically developed ones. Try to be specific about which theories you're drawing on and why you find them persuasive.

Critical Thinking Exercises

Exercise 11.9 — Condorcet and Democracy

The Condorcet Jury Theorem provides an epistemic argument for democracy. But the theorem rests on assumptions.

(a) What are the key assumptions? For each, consider whether it is realistic. (b) What happens to the theorem if voters are systematically misinformed (rather than having random errors)? What implications does this have for democracy? (c) Does the epistemic case for democracy make democracy contingent on performance? If a society of experts consistently outperformed a democracy, would that undermine the case for democracy? What does your answer reveal about what you think democracy is really for?

Exercise 11.10 — International Analogy

Hobbes argued that in the international sphere — among sovereign states — conditions roughly resemble the state of nature. States compete, there is no sovereign authority, and security concerns dominate.

(a) Is this Hobbesian description accurate for the contemporary international order? Consider: the United Nations, international courts, trade agreements, nuclear deterrence. (b) If Hobbes is right that the international order resembles the state of nature, what does his argument imply about what we need internationally? (c) Do Lockean natural rights have any purchase in international relations? Can states have their sovereignty "forfeited" by violating natural rights?

Exercise 11.11 — Civil Disobedience

Rawls argued that civil disobedience can be justified in a "nearly just" democracy when it is: (1) directed at a substantial injustice, (2) undertaken after legal means have been exhausted, (3) nonviolent, and (4) publicly avowed.

Apply this framework to a historical or contemporary case of civil disobedience. Does the case meet Rawls's criteria? If not, is that because the civil disobedience was unjustified, or because Rawls's criteria are too restrictive?

Synthesis Exercise

Exercise 11.12 — Part II Synthesis

You have now encountered six major ethical frameworks in Part II: - Consequentialism (Chapter 4) - Deontology (Chapter 4) - Virtue Ethics (Chapter 4) - Care Ethics (Chapter 10) - Social Contract Theory (Chapter 11) - Deliberative Democracy / Political Liberalism (Chapter 11)

In 500–700 words, describe your current "ethical framework" — not as a single theory, but as an account of how you actually approach ethical and political questions. Which elements from which frameworks do you draw on? Where do they complement each other? Where do they conflict, and how do you resolve or live with those conflicts?

This is preparation for the Part II capstone. There are no wrong answers, but there is a wrong approach: simply listing what each theory says. The task is to say what you think, in light of what you've learned.